Most would I think, see this as a 3 dimensional world. On this

[mayflow]

Most would I think, see this as a 3 dimensional world. On this particular forum, maybe many may think of it as 4 dimensional with time as a 4th dimension. I like some of superstring theories with up to 11 dimensions, but hold a fairly dramatic different viewpoint.

I think the senses are only two dimensional and the brain makes them three dimensional. If you look at the skies, you see depth, but if you look at a tv screen, you also see depth. SO, here is a new way to see. With your mind. It already posits a third dimension.

 

[Feldoh]

This is more of a philosophical statement than a physical one.

EDIT: By which I mean physical laws describe the world in ways which are not inherently two dimensional.

 

[johng23]

It's definitely true that two stationary detectors can not tell what distance incoming photons came from. But your eyes are constantly moving around (and your head), and there are other cues like shadows and relative sizes that all help your brain map the incoming photons to a 3-D image of the world in your mind.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at exactly.

 

[mayflow]

This is more of a philosophical statement than a physical one.

EDIT: By which I mean physical laws describe the world in ways which are not inherently two dimensional.

But it is minds that construe these physical laws (I am not even convinced there ARE physical laws)

Sure it may be more philosophical than physical, but even in quantum and even in Einstein's stuff, I think their minds understand (understood if you want to implicate time as a dimension) that mind itself has no dimensional constrictions.

Everything beyond simple sensorary inputs to the brain is brain manufactured by the brain, in human beings.

 

[Studiot]

Since it is not physically possible to see round the back of something without walking round there Nature has achieved the best alternative with vision.

Many creatures, Man included, have binocular vision.

This means that each eye provides a slightly different view. The brian is process this different information to create a three dimensional representation of depth. It allows us to measure in three D.

There is a process in surveying that uses this principle called photogrammetry.

 

[Feldoh]

But it is minds that construe these physical laws (I am not even convinced there ARE physical laws)

Sure it may be more philosophical than physical

That's my point. The philosophy discussion board is else where. It's fun to argue what what exactly is is we see, rationalize, etc... However there is a dedicated board on this forum specifically for that purpose.

The idea of this forum is to discuss physical theories. Arguing that perception is essentially perceived physics is not a physical theory, it's a philosophy.

 

[mayflow]

That's my point. The philosophy discussion board is else where. It's fun to argue what what exactly is is we see, rationalize, etc... However there is a dedicated board on this forum specifically for that purpose.

The idea of this forum is to discuss physical theories. Arguing that perception is essentially perceived physics is not a physical theory, it's a philosophy.

Explain to me how you think physics theories are somehow separate from the minds that
create them?

 

[JaredJames]

Explain to me how you think physics theories are somehow separate from the minds that
create them?

Less of the attitude and arguing, what you are discussing is a philosophical issue. End of story.

If you want it to remain in physics, why don't you post some references to back up what you're saying?

 

[DaveC426913]

But it is minds that construe these physical laws (I am not even convinced there ARE physical laws)

Well, the physical laws got along just fine long before our minds came along to perceive them, so rest assured.

 

[Townes]

I think the senses are only two dimensional and the brain makes them three dimensional.

Would the vestibular system of the inner ear be regarded as a sense of three dimensions?

 

[trini]

thats a highly philosophical question OP, personally i think our perception of 3d is nothing more than layers of 2d stacked over one another with perspective added in due to the curved shape of our eye, but that's neither here nor there. this question is less about physics and more about neurology i suppose, to me the question is:

if everything we see can essentially be replicated in a photograph, and if i were able to place you in some kind of inertia-less sphere so that u could walk but not move because the sphere were rotating, and if i could also project on the inner walls of this sphere images of an environment(2d), would i have replicated a 3d world?

 

[JaredJames]

thats a highly philosophical question OP, personally i think our perception of 3d is nothing more than layers of 2d stacked over one another with perspective added in due to the curved shape of our eye, but that's neither here nor there. this question is less about physics and more about neurology i suppose, to me the question is:

if everything we see can essentially be replicated in a photograph, and if i were able to place you in some kind of inertia-less sphere so that u could walk but not move because the sphere were rotating, and if i could also project on the inner walls of this sphere images of an environment(2d), would i have replicated a 3d world?

We have depth perception due to having two eyes. I'm sure that's what plays a key part in seeing things in 3D (at least at close range).

A 2D image doesn't replicate the 3D world. This should be obvious, otherwise all films would be immediately 3D and you wouldn't have a current boom with new films being done in 3D. So no, your sphere example wouldn't work.

 

[trini]

i never bought into the whole depth perception solely because of two eyes thing, i can drive just fine with one eye open.

also it is not the 2d images which i am saying are 3d, it is the changing of these 2d images as we look/move around that gives us reason to believe there are indeed 3 dimensions. for example, say i had some kind of motion sensor tracking your eyes,and had an image of a cube on a flat screen, then as u moved your body and eyes, the image would adjust to show you the appropriate viewpoint on the cube. this would be a collection of 2d images, but you would probably perceive the shape as being 3d

 

[JaredJames]

i never bought into the whole depth perception solely because of two eyes thing, i can drive just fine with one eye open.

You can not buy it all you like, it's a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception

It's not a case of having no depth perception with only one eye, but it doesn't work anywhere near as well.

also it is not the 2d images which i am saying are 3d, it is the changing of these 2d images as we look/move around that gives us reason to believe there are indeed 3 dimensions. for example, say i had some kind of motion sensor tracking your eyes,and had an image of a cube on a flat screen, then as u moved your body and eyes, the image would adjust to show you the appropriate viewpoint on the cube. this would be a collection of 2d images, but you would probably perceive the shape as being 3d

A 2D image does not appear to be 3D however you show it (optical illusions aside). There is little to no depth on the image. Again, this is why we have 3D films, TV's etc.

 

[trini]

we have 2 eyes for better depth perception, we don't have depth perception because we have 2 eyes.

and the whole point of the device was to make an optical illusion, so u can't just say 'optical illusions aside'.

 

[JaredJames]

and the whole point of the device was to make an optical illusion, so u can't just say 'optical illusions aside'.

Your device isn't an optical illusion though.

The best way to explain it is to go to one of the big theme parks with a simulator.

Ride it without glasses first and it's just like watching a film with a moving seat.

Ride it with glasses the second time and you become immersed and feel like you're actually moving.

You need something to provide depth perception otherwise the 3D goes out of the window.

 

[trini]

i've bben to those rides but they don't work the way I'm suggesting

here's an example of what I am talking about:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/johnny_lee_demos_wii_remote_hacks.html

see how even with just a 2d image OF a 2d we can still get a bit of the illusion?

 

[JaredJames]

Wow, I'm impressed with that.

(I'm going to build one now - must try it!)

 

[trini]

cool right?

of course the limitation is that it only works on one person at a time this way...until screens become thin enough to turn them into the glasses lenses themselves ;)